The article undertakes an exploration into the rather unexpected progressiveness exhibited by courts across the globe in bestowing protection upon LGBTQ rights. A three-pronged study, which encompasses an examination of the theoretical rationales, empirical investigations, and doctrinal underpinnings of the augmentation of LGBTQ rights in diverse locales, is executed. It is hypothesized that a prima facie paradox emerges, whereby LGBTQ rights have been safeguarded and advanced in an extraordinary fashion, while concurrently, a discernible general trend of deviation from liberal constitutionalism, rights safeguarding mechanisms, and the rule of law is observable in other arenas. This article scrutinizes this contention and discovers that it is substantiated by case law from various regions. Critical theory and Butler’s theory of performativity potentially offer the most cogent explanations for this paradox. They have led to the social embrace of LGBTQ rights, while simultaneously, the enactment or amplification of these rights even in illiberal states furnishes an effortless ‘triumph’ for illiberal political actors, which can be employed as a countermeasure against assaults on their liberal and democratic reputations.